The latest news from Redland City Council

Menu

Enhanced park and public spaces for Toondah Harbour: Mayor

February 21, 2014

Redland City Mayor Karen Williams wants the Toondah Harbour Priority Development Area project to improve the public amenity of GJ Walter Park.

Cr Williams said GJ Walter Park was a great city asset and she was determined to ensure it became an even better and more popular public space.

“There has been confusion about the future for GJ Walter Park. There is no way the park will be lost to the city and the people. Any good destination has improved public open space for the whole community and region to use and enjoy,” she said.

“Our vision is for better open space and any significant destination offers that, just as Toondah Harbour will.

“GJ Walter Park is not only recognised in the Toondah Harbour proposed development scheme, it is also included in Council’s Open Space Plan that was adopted last year, so the message is there will be open space at Toondah Harbour, end of story.

“In fact it is already in the proposed development scheme on page 13, which says that applications will need to allow for an appropriately sized recreation and open space area in GJ Walter Park providing formal and informal recreational activities and a dog park.”

“I want better open space so residents can not only continue to enjoy a dog park but can also make use of boardwalks, cycle ways and maybe even a water park.”

Cr Williams said other concerns associated with the development scheme, such as building heights, would be considered when Council made its recommendations to the State Government on the proposed development scheme.

“We currently have a proposed development scheme, not a plan. This is a draft only and the final scheme will take into account community feedback and commercial reality,” she said.

“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put Redlands on the map.

“The Toondah Harbour redevelopment gives this city an opportunity to create a sought-after destination – an amazing location nestled right on Moreton Bay and just 30 minutes from Brisbane Airport.

“We want to make sure we get the balance right to allow development, better access and improvements in this critical area funded by investors rather than ratepayers, but we also want to ensure it remains first and foremost an effective gateway to North Stradbroke Island.

“As I walk about the city people tell me they want a brilliant foreshore like Suttons Beach at Redcliffe.

“The Toondah Harbour redevelopment has been mooted since the 1960s. It’s high time we delivered it to the people of the Redlands because they deserve to experience and enjoy what other regions now take for granted.

“Council, who will assess the private sector development applications, is listening to the local community and wants to make sure everyone has a chance to have their say.

“Currently feedback closes on 24 February 2014, although Council has requested an extension to the Toondah Harbour feedback period, but we are yet to receive a response from the State Government.”

Someone wake me up please . I’m having a dream in which Mayor Williams is talking drivel that is so contradictory a Grade 6 child would even question it. In this dream the Mayor treats us with contempt and thinks we are confused. Bless us!
Further in the dream she says that everything will be great and we should trust her and many do without asking how it will be OK.
Other, pesky irritating voices ask her to show how she thinks it’s going to be OK but these voices are shushed over. Just before I wake up I realise that she hasn’t read the document herself but she is being told that it will be OK by other older counsel from a time before.
Develop Toondah Harbour – Hands off GJ Walter Park.

Comparisons with Redcliffe are bereft of common-sense.
Cleveland couldn’t be more different and these differences will mean that such a development mooted for Toondah and GJ Walter Park will ultimately have a different outcome to those at Redcliffe.

Mayor Williams states “There has been confusion about the future for GJ Walter Park.” I agree and also add that all the confusion has been caused by the rubbery documentation throughout all 36 pages of the Proposed Development Scheme (PDS). I support my statement by referring those interested in facts to refer to Map 2 (Structure Plan) on page 7 of the PDS where a green asterisk is shown to represent GJ Walter Park. What is shown is only half correct. To be fair, even by PDS standards, a second green asterisk should also be shown to reflect that the current park goes all the way to Middle Street.
Also, Map 4 “Height Plan” on page 12 also shows high rise development built all over the current GJ Walter Park. More confusion again caused by the Mayor in today’s article talking about “appropriately sized” activities in GJ Walter Park. These activities also seem to include a totally unnecessary proposed road going right through GJ Walter park. If the proposed road is even only one lane each way with parking either side and a footpath either side, the corridor required will be as wide as Bloomfield Street right outside the RCC building. All the above anomalies relating to GJ Walter Park only, have been brought to the attention of RCC, and all any concerned citizen gets back from RCC (on any issue) is that “this is a draft only and the final scheme” (which the community do not get to comment on) “will take into account community feedback and commercial reality”. It sounds like the community aren’t real doesn’t it. To date RCC have not addressed major issues previously well aired by residents.
In conclusion, I would like to point out to the Minister for Economic Development Qld, RCC Mayor, Councillors and readers, a mere detail in that the smaller grey spot on Map 2 to represent the passenger ferry terminal shows this terminal appears to be under the very centre of the 15 storey high rise complex. I am confused, but it is fact. That is what the rubbery PDS shows, and is what I am supposed to comment intelligently on.
The PDS / PDA process is a sham, and that is the only transparent thing about it. The process is an undemocratic disgrace to the State Government and the RCC.
Garry HILL
Cleveland resident

Stop this madness – leave the park alone.
today is a good day to compare it to redcliff.
The same will happen to you at the polls if you don’t listen to the residents.
Low impact & low rise -consult the residents properly – stop wasting money on pushing your agenda.
You need to man up and say no to this PDA. If not see you at the polls.
ByeBye.

Thank you Karen for all your good work in trying at last to bring this project to fruition. Am keen to see this project be accomplished. My only negativity is towards the really high rise development…but in this also I think that discretion and wisdom will prevail in the final submission.

Cr. Williams has stated that GJ Walter Park will remain as open space, which it should. The other extremely contentious part of the proposal is the height of residential buildings in the development. I believe that buildings in the Toondah Harbour redevelopment should definitely not be higher than 7 stories. Yes, developers will want higher buildings, but Council needs to be firm on this matter – we do not want higher buildings here.

The Mayor has not said that G.J. Walter Park will remain as open space. The words attributed to her have been carefully chosen to give this illusion but if you re-read them you will see that they are meaningless waffle which can not be quantified. Nothing said by the Mayor in the above article or elsewhere can be interpreted as a guarantee that the area which we know as G.J. Walter Park will remain as open space. Check the words carefully:
“Enhanced park and public spaces” (the title)
“an even better and more popular public space”
“improved public open space ”
“better open space”
“there will be open space at Toondah Harbour”
“an appropriately sized recreation and open space area”
“better open space”

Given the height of some of the mooted buildings and the number of residents that it is hoped that the development will house what consideration has been given to improving the access to the development. It is proposed for an 800 berth marina to be constructed which means a potential 800 cars need to be capable of being parked close to that precinct where are they to be parked? Who will pay for the upkeep of the channel for the ferries, vehicular and passenger and the marina?

I don’t mind the idea of development down there, but maps published do show a portion of G.J. Walter Park would be filled up, which is why some residents have been voicing their disapproval. Hopefully the final plan won’t be like what the maps are showing